User talk:Atlantisau

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
Apologies for missing the citation in your edit, as I was looking for it at the end. However, the source given, a personal recollection, is not considered reliable or verifiable on Wikipedia (see WP:Burden, which says that facts "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"). Also if the version was only used in one school it will almost certainly fail WP:N. Sorry, but not all material is appropriate to an encyclopaedia. I hope you enjoy providing other edits for wikipedia. I have posted a welcome with some of the key policies above that you may want to follow and read.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice - I have read your explanation as to why you removed this content and have looked at both the WP:Burden and WP:N entries. The material can be corroborated by several people - will this satisfy WP:Burden? It has been used at at least two schools (Barker College and Sydney Grammar) and the notability of the Roget interpretation is sound. Details on the author are at www.johnsmorris.net. Finally, I appreciate the time you have taken to provide advice and hope these questions are not overly naive. --atlantisau (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2009

Your welcome and really we all have to get used to how this thing works, if you are going to edit you have to get used to being reverted and adjusted, that is the Wikipedia way. However, good news, I managed to find a source for the Roget's version (so have put it back in) and I think your astronomy version may on of the ones referred to a little further down the list. Sorry to say there is no reason to mention the teacher, as he is not the subject of the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Having reviewed further Wikipedia information, I see that there is no place for the mention of the teacher here, unfortunate though that may be. I do find the trend to eliminate information, such as the exact nature of the words, to be wrong. Millennia of oral tradition has resulted in much of the information that Wikipedia now reports as fact. In this instance, the exact words of Roget's version have been provided as recalled and verifiable by more than one person. The reference to its existence is cold comfort to someone seeking an encyclopedia's detail - rather they are sent on another search that will probably end up with them having to buy a book to find the words. Likewise, as you said earlier regarding the astronomy version "I think your astronomy version may on (sic) of the ones referred to a little further down the list." - the reader is not given the words but another need to search on for the information they hoped the encyclopedia would provide.Atlantisau (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)